BuffettNews.com

Thank you, MammaBear.

I would rather - or maybe better said - IN ADDITION to the policy changing.... More importantly what needs to change is the way people view people that are different from them. Instead of fighting it - they should embrace it. Especially positive, successful, caring members of our society who are WILLING TO GIVE THEIR LIFE for the country that won't let them be open.

As far as the parades comment - that one always bothers me a little because I don't get beat up, fired, or kiiled because I am straight. They should March - they are trying to get the aboe mentioned people to open up and accept them - that's it.... Who care's if they march - why should it bother you?

If everyone had just ONE loved family member who was gay I think we would be al ot more tolerant... Empathy would help too... I am a big fan of empathy and wish more people had it.

Kudos to all military personnel who are brave enough to fight for our country and brave enough to endure the ridiculous scrutiny that goes with being gay in the military.... bc they are really just be labeled as "in the military" - just like everyone else. imho

Democrats control everything right now. Time to stop blaming republicans and the religious right. The change can happen now if they want it to, simple as that. Problem is they are too afriad to lose an election to do what is right. As long as the person is a qualified soldier, who cares what they do in the bedroom.

I agree with SGH on this. When I was in, I didn't care about the sexual orientation of the guy/gal in my platoon or company. Just as I never cared about the color of their skin or their whether or not they had a Y chromosome. I cared about whether or not they could do their job. If they were good and wanted to succeed, come along. If not, get out.

It was a stupid policy when Clinton penned it, and it was a stupid policy when W didn't rescind it, and it is still a stupid policy today. Make it legal. Have the political courage to make the change. I would be surprised if Obama did, but there's always "HOPE", right?

Indiana Jolly Mon wrote:Democrats control everything right now. Time to stop blaming republicans and the religious right. The change can happen now if they want it to, simple as that. Problem is they are too afriad to lose an election to do what is right. As long as the person is a qualified soldier, who cares what they do in the bedroom.

I'm not sure anyone was blaming the religious right. The thread specifically calls for change from Obama, who is about as right wing as my left hand.

buffettbride wrote:

Indiana Jolly Mon wrote:Democrats control everything right now. Time to stop blaming republicans and the religious right. The change can happen now if they want it to, simple as that. Problem is they are too afriad to lose an election to do what is right. As long as the person is a qualified soldier, who cares what they do in the bedroom.

I'm not sure anyone was blaming the religious right. The thread specifically calls for change from Obama, who is about as right wing as my left hand.

Exactly. No blame assigned, by me at least.

Indiana Jolly Mon wrote:Democrats control everything right now. Time to stop blaming republicans and the religious right. The change can happen now if they want it to, simple as that. Problem is they are too afriad to lose an election to do what is right. As long as the person is a qualified soldier, who cares what they do in the bedroom.

a) Obama has been in office what, about 120 days? Having inherited a massive sh!tstorm from the previous administration, he's had a couple other issues on his mind. Sorry that he hasn't had the time to undo every half-a$$ed, hosed-up, sub-moronic policy decision from 6 years of unfettered Repub rule in that time. They could have changed the policy anytime they wished as well, but maintained it.

b) given the way things are so polarized, either party in power is d*m ed if they do, and if they don't. Someone last week mentioned that Obama and the Democrats voted for $95 billion in emergency spending for the military and derided that as hypocritical. Failing to do it would have kicked off a different, but equally-foul sh!tstorm from the rabid right as well.

c) while I am pointing out that there are other things that might have affected the prioritization of this issue, that is not me saying I don't believe it is important. Nor am I saying that it should not be. I am just saying that 120 days of constant criticism for a job made incredibly-difficult by a room-temp IQ previous occupant might not be a realistic window of expectation for resolution of all problems facing us as a country.

green1 wrote:I agree with SGH on this. When I was in, I didn't care about the sexual orientation of the guy/gal in my platoon or company. Just as I never cared about the color of their skin or their whether or not they had a Y chromosome. I cared about whether or not they could do their job. If they were good and wanted to succeed, come along. If not, get out.

It was a stupid policy when Clinton penned it, and it was a stupid policy when W didn't rescind it, and it is still a stupid policy today. Make it legal. Have the political courage to make the change. I would be surprised if Obama did, but there's always "HOPE", right?

I think that's a textbook example of an oxymoron.

LIPH wrote:

green1 wrote:I agree with SGH on this. When I was in, I didn't care about the sexual orientation of the guy/gal in my platoon or company. Just as I never cared about the color of their skin or their whether or not they had a Y chromosome. I cared about whether or not they could do their job. If they were good and wanted to succeed, come along. If not, get out.

It was a stupid policy when Clinton penned it, and it was a stupid policy when W didn't rescind it, and it is still a stupid policy today. Make it legal. Have the political courage to make the change. I would be surprised if Obama did, but there's always "HOPE", right?

I think that's a textbook example of an oxymoron.

I must concur . . . in most countries!

Obama has lied about so many things I have lost count.

As far as this issue is concerned: it should be a non issue. But no president should be above the military.

drunkpirate66 wrote:Obama has lied about so many things I have lost count.

As far as this issue is concerned: it should be a non issue. But no president should be above the military.

Then, and I ask this very innocently, WHY is he called Commander-in-Chief?

tikitatas wrote:

drunkpirate66 wrote:Obama has lied about so many things I have lost count.

As far as this issue is concerned: it should be a non issue. But no president should be above the military.

Then, and I ask this very innocently, WHY is he called Commander-in-Chief?

He is is control of the military in theory (although any President would never go against the Join Chiefs without proper due process). He is not above the military in a manner of thinking.

The sad truth is that although a lot of folks state publicly they believe in equal rights, gay marriage was voted down in states that Obama won. That is why I stated it was time to stop blaming others. Not saying all change has to happen in the first 100 days, but it is time for those who made promises to either keep them or be like most other politicians in history and just keep lying to us. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

RinglingRingling wrote:

Indiana Jolly Mon wrote:Democrats control everything right now. Time to stop blaming republicans and the religious right. The change can happen now if they want it to, simple as that. Problem is they are too afriad to lose an election to do what is right. As long as the person is a qualified soldier, who cares what they do in the bedroom.

a) Obama has been in office what, about 120 days? Having inherited a massive sh!tstorm from the previous administration, he's had a couple other issues on his mind. Sorry that he hasn't had the time to undo every half-a$$ed, hosed-up, sub-moronic policy decision from 6 years of unfettered Repub rule in that time. They could have changed the policy anytime they wished as well, but maintained it.

b) given the way things are so polarized, either party in power is d*m ed if they do, and if they don't. Someone last week mentioned that Obama and the Democrats voted for $95 billion in emergency spending for the military and derided that as hypocritical. Failing to do it would have kicked off a different, but equally-foul sh!tstorm from the rabid right as well.

c) while I am pointing out that there are other things that might have affected the prioritization of this issue, that is not me saying I don't believe it is important. Nor am I saying that it should not be. I am just saying that 120 days of constant criticism for a job made incredibly-difficult by a room-temp IQ previous occupant might not be a realistic window of expectation for resolution of all problems facing us as a country.

wR2s

Lightning Bolt wrote:

RinglingRingling wrote:

Indiana Jolly Mon wrote:Democrats control everything right now. Time to stop blaming republicans and the religious right. The change can happen now if they want it to, simple as that. Problem is they are too afriad to lose an election to do what is right. As long as the person is a qualified soldier, who cares what they do in the bedroom.

a) Obama has been in office what, about 120 days? Having inherited a massive sh!tstorm from the previous administration, he's had a couple other issues on his mind. Sorry that he hasn't had the time to undo every half-a$$ed, hosed-up, sub-moronic policy decision from 6 years of unfettered Repub rule in that time. They could have changed the policy anytime they wished as well, but maintained it.

b) given the way things are so polarized, either party in power is d*m ed if they do, and if they don't. Someone last week mentioned that Obama and the Democrats voted for $95 billion in emergency spending for the military and derided that as hypocritical. Failing to do it would have kicked off a different, but equally-foul sh!tstorm from the rabid right as well.

c) while I am pointing out that there are other things that might have affected the prioritization of this issue, that is not me saying I don't believe it is important. Nor am I saying that it should not be. I am just saying that 120 days of constant criticism for a job made incredibly-difficult by a room-temp IQ previous occupant might not be a realistic window of expectation for resolution of all problems facing us as a country.

wR2s

It sure was enough time for him to hire Lobbyists after running the most expansive campaign ever based on "change" defined by "under my administration I will not hire Lobbyists" or "Lobbyists will not be part of my office". In fact, it only took him 14 days for that lie . . .

drunkpirate66 wrote:

Lightning Bolt wrote:

RinglingRingling wrote:

Indiana Jolly Mon wrote:Democrats control everything right now. Time to stop blaming republicans and the religious right. The change can happen now if they want it to, simple as that. Problem is they are too afriad to lose an election to do what is right. As long as the person is a qualified soldier, who cares what they do in the bedroom.

a) Obama has been in office what, about 120 days? Having inherited a massive sh!tstorm from the previous administration, he's had a couple other issues on his mind. Sorry that he hasn't had the time to undo every half-a$$ed, hosed-up, sub-moronic policy decision from 6 years of unfettered Repub rule in that time. They could have changed the policy anytime they wished as well, but maintained it.

b) given the way things are so polarized, either party in power is d*m ed if they do, and if they don't. Someone last week mentioned that Obama and the Democrats voted for $95 billion in emergency spending for the military and derided that as hypocritical. Failing to do it would have kicked off a different, but equally-foul sh!tstorm from the rabid right as well.

c) while I am pointing out that there are other things that might have affected the prioritization of this issue, that is not me saying I don't believe it is important. Nor am I saying that it should not be. I am just saying that 120 days of constant criticism for a job made incredibly-difficult by a room-temp IQ previous occupant might not be a realistic window of expectation for resolution of all problems facing us as a country.

wR2s

It sure was enough time for him to hire Lobbyists after running the most expansive campaign ever based on "change" defined by "under my administration I will not hire Lobbyists" or "Lobbyists will not be part of my office". In fact, it only took him 14 days for that lie . . .

Political realities of Washington set in. He didn't get elected simply on the "no lobbyist" platform.

tikitatas wrote:

drunkpirate66 wrote:Obama has lied about so many things I have lost count.

As far as this issue is concerned: it should be a non issue. But no president should be above the military.

Then, and I ask this very innocently, WHY is he called Commander-in-Chief?

Because under the Constitution of the United States, Article II, Section 2 he IS the commander in chief.

ph4ever wrote:

tikitatas wrote:

drunkpirate66 wrote:Obama has lied about so many things I have lost count.

As far as this issue is concerned: it should be a non issue. But no president should be above the military.

Then, and I ask this very innocently, WHY is he called Commander-in-Chief?

Because under the Constitution of the United States, Article II, Section 2 he IS the commander in chief.

Really? I didn't know that. What a revelation! I feel liberated. But again, "above" is not the same as in "control of" and NO President would go against the Joint Chiefs without due process.

Lightning Bolt wrote:

drunkpirate66 wrote:

Lightning Bolt wrote:

RinglingRingling wrote:

Indiana Jolly Mon wrote:Democrats control everything right now. Time to stop blaming republicans and the religious right. The change can happen now if they want it to, simple as that. Problem is they are too afriad to lose an election to do what is right. As long as the person is a qualified soldier, who cares what they do in the bedroom.

a) Obama has been in office what, about 120 days? Having inherited a massive sh!tstorm from the previous administration, he's had a couple other issues on his mind. Sorry that he hasn't had the time to undo every half-a$$ed, hosed-up, sub-moronic policy decision from 6 years of unfettered Repub rule in that time. They could have changed the policy anytime they wished as well, but maintained it.

b) given the way things are so polarized, either party in power is d*m ed if they do, and if they don't. Someone last week mentioned that Obama and the Democrats voted for $95 billion in emergency spending for the military and derided that as hypocritical. Failing to do it would have kicked off a different, but equally-foul sh!tstorm from the rabid right as well.

c) while I am pointing out that there are other things that might have affected the prioritization of this issue, that is not me saying I don't believe it is important. Nor am I saying that it should not be. I am just saying that 120 days of constant criticism for a job made incredibly-difficult by a room-temp IQ previous occupant might not be a realistic window of expectation for resolution of all problems facing us as a country.

wR2s

It sure was enough time for him to hire Lobbyists after running the most expansive campaign ever based on "change" defined by "under my administration I will not hire Lobbyists" or "Lobbyists will not be part of my office". In fact, it only took him 14 days for that lie . . .

Political realities of Washington set in. He didn't get elected simply on the "no lobbyist" platform.

Atleast we can now admit he is a liar. And you would think that a United States Senator would have some concept of the Political realities of Washington . . . maybe he wasn't ready for the job afterall - shouldn't make such bold promises if you don't know what you are talking about.

drunkpirate66 wrote:

ph4ever wrote:

tikitatas wrote:

drunkpirate66 wrote:Obama has lied about so many things I have lost count.

As far as this issue is concerned: it should be a non issue. But no president should be above the military.

Then, and I ask this very innocently, WHY is he called Commander-in-Chief?

Because under the Constitution of the United States, Article II, Section 2 he IS the commander in chief.

Really? I didn't know that. What a revelation! I feel liberated. But again, "above" is not the same as in "control of" and NO President would go against the Joint Chiefs without due process.

You know I was really just answering Cate's honest question and not wanting to enter into any kind of "debate" nor to be the recipient of any snideness.